4 ms·
The big issue with this type of thing is that there is no moat. As long as it is small not to attract attention, you are fine. However, if it becomes big, or a
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
The big issue with this type of thing is that there is no moat. As long as it is small not to attract attention, you are fine.
However, if it becomes big, or a larger company sees it as strategic, then it is hard for you, especially for Enterprise software. Suppose Microsoft or Amazon uses the same Guacamole components to create a solution. Then they send their sales people to the CTO of the Enterprise. "We heard you are using this Guacamole software in your enterprise. Why don't you buy our solution instead. It has the same features (actually, even the same code), but it is supported by Microsoft (or Amazon) instead of Glyptodon, Inc."
- cy_hauser 6y agoProbably easier for msft or amzn to just buy them out and get the customer base too.
- walterbell 6y agoIn this case (VDI), Microsoft, Amazon and others already own the market. Guacamole is picking up refugees from big players.
- gregwebs 6y agoThe moat with the Red Hat model is the trademark. Someone else can build an alternative (such as CentOS), but they cannot call it Red Hat and they have to do their own brand development.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y agoI think Red Hat is pretty unique. In the decades since Red Hat was founded, I don't think a similar company has emerged at Red Hat's scale and reputation.
- gregwebs 6y agoThere are other open source companies using the Red Hat licensing model now such as Chef. Some are coming to the realization this license style is the only one where the goal of both being open source and having some kind of moat are easy to accomplish. Otherwise every time you start a new code repository you need to think about its license and your future business strategy.